Advertisement

April 20, 2014

Petitioners File Opening Brief Challenging Securities and Exchange Commission's "SEC" Conflict Minerals Rule

The National Association of Manufacturers, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and Business Roundtable recently filed their opening brief with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their suit against the Securities and Exchange Commission challenging the final SEC rule implementing Section 1502 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, commonly referred to as the “conflict minerals rule.” As reported in Corporate and Financial Weekly Digest of August 24, 2012, the conflict minerals rule mandates disclosure and reporting requirements regarding the use by issuers of certain minerals sourced from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and adjoining countries.

In their brief, the petitioners argue that the court should strike down the conflict minerals rule for the following reasons: (1) the SEC failed to conduct a proper cost-benefit analysis and, in particular, did not determine whether the rule would achieve the intended benefit for the DRC and underestimated the rule’s costs to issuers; (2) the SEC misconstrued the statute in concluding that it could not adopt a de minimis exception to the rule; (3) the rule wrongly requires due diligence and a Conflict Minerals Report from companies that merely have a “reason to believe” their minerals “may have originated” in the covered region (rather than limiting the rule’s application to companies whose minerals “did originate” in the region); (4) the SEC failed to justify its decision to require companies to trace minerals back to the smelter or refiner, even though commenters suggested the far less burdensome approach to use “flow-down” clauses in contracts to require suppliers not to source conflict minerals from the covered countries; (5) the SEC mistakenly interpreted the statute to apply to companies that do not manufacture any products and merely contract for the manufacture of products; (6) the rule is internally inconsistent because it gives smaller issuers four years to create the infrastructure necessary to trace conflict minerals in their supply chain, while giving larger issuers only two years, despite acknowledging that many large issuers cannot meet their obligations under the rule without obtaining information from smaller companies; and (7) the rule compels speech in violation of the First Amendment by requiring companies to describe their products as “not DRC conflict free,” even in circumstances in which a company is simply unable to trace their supply chains to determine their minerals’ origins, thereby forcing companies to associate themselves falsely with groups engaged in human rights violations. (Brief of Petitioners, National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC, No. 12-1422 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 16, 2013), ECF No. 1415549.)

The SEC’s brief is due on March 1.

©2014 Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

About the Author

Mark D. Wood, Energy Attorney, Katten Muchin Law firm
Partner

Mark D. Wood is head of Katten's Securities practice and concentrates in corporate and securities law. Mark represents public companies, issuers and investment banks in initial public offerings (IPOs) and other public offerings, private investment in public equity (PIPE) transactions, debt securities and other securities matters.

312-902-5493

About the Author

David S. Kravitz, Corporate Attorney, Katten Muchin Law firm
Associate

David S. Kravitz concentrates his practice in corporate matters.

212-940-6354

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.